Advertisement

MAPAN

pp 1–11 | Cite as

Analysis of the Influence of Water-Vapor Correction Term on the Measurement Uncertainty of Wind Speed

  • Mingming WeiEmail author
  • Yang Zeng
  • Li Zou
  • Chunhua Wen
  • Xiaogang Liu
  • Changchun Li
  • Shan Xu
Original Paper
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

In order to explore the influence of water-vapor correction term on wind speed uncertainty, the actual measured value of wind speed by pitot tube is the research object, Firstly, the uncertainty value of the wind speed value obtained by the simplified model (discarding the water-vapor correction term) is evaluated by GUM method. Then, the MCM evaluates the uncertainty of the wind speed value obtained from the original model (including the water-vapor correction term). Finally, two kinds of the evaluation results obtained by the method are compared in the form of probability distribution graphics, and the numerical analysis is carried out. After the water-vapor correction item is discarded, the fluctuation degree and dispersion degree of the measurement result will be reduced, and the degree of reduction is 1.0988% and 1.0929%, respectively. The degree of volatility is about 25.8513% of the degree of dispersion. The degree of influence on the volatility and dispersion of the measurement result is about 0.2305% and 0.8987% of the measured value of wind speed. In the application, for the occasion of pursuing the accuracy of measured value of wind speed, it is recommended to use the original model to measure the real-time wind speed. For the occasion of the stability of the wind speed measurement result, the GUM method can be used to evaluate the uncertainty of the simplified model.

Keywords

Metrology Uncertainty Wind speed MCM GUM 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by meteorological science and technology key project of jiangxi province (No. 2018127).

Author Contributions

MW analyzed the data and wrote the paper. YZ contributed to the literature review and helped to perform data analysis. LZ and CW analyzed the experiments and compiled the program. XL and SX reviewed and edited the manuscript. CL supervised the research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. [1]
    Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology 2008 International Vocabulary of Metrology—Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    I. Kuselman and F. Pennecchi, Human errors and measurement uncertainty. Metrologia 52(2) (2015): 238.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    W.A. Cooper, S.M. Spuler, M. Spowart et al., Calibrating airborne measurements of airspeed, pressure and temperature using a Doppler laser air-motion sensor. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 7(9) 2014 3215–3231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology 2008, Evaluation of Measurement Data—Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html.
  5. [5]
    A. Acharya, V. Bharath, P. Arora, S. Yadav, A. Agarwal and A.S. Gupta, Systematic uncertainty evaluation of the cesium fountain primary frequency standard at NPL India. Mapan 32(1) (2017) 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Xu, B. Guo, F. Sui, A. Xu, P. Zheng, S. Zhang, Q. Huang, F. Li, Y. Wang, Y. He and Q. Yu, Purity determination and uncertainty evaluation of acrylonitrile by gas chromatography and differential scanning calorimetry. MAPAN 33(3) (2018) 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Ekici and I. Teke, Measurement uncertainty analysis of temperature based solar radiation estimation models. MAPAN 33(3) (2018) 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    E.M. Lessard, R.C. Bowden and S.K. Yang, Uncertainty quantification of low void fraction measurements using wire-mesh sensors in horizontal air–water flows. ASME 2016 Fluids Engineering Division Summer Meeting collocated with the ASME 2016 Heat Transfer Summer Conference and the ASME 2016 14th International Conference on Nanochannels, Microchannels, and Minichannels. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2016).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    T. Yu, Y. He, J. Song, H. Shen, J. Wang and G. Gao, Uncertainty in air–sea CO2 flux due to transfer velocity. Int. J. Remote Sens. 35(11-12) (2014) 4340–4370.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    C. Federspiel, Using the torque characteristics of dampers to measure airflow, Part II: analysis and testing. HVAC&R Res. 10(1) (2004) 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    W. Kanga, N.D.Trang, S.H. Lee, H.M. Choi, J.S. Shim, H.S. Jang and Y.M. Choi, Experimental and numerical investigations of the factors affecting the S-type Pitot tube coefficients. Flow Meas. Instrum. 44 (2015) 11–18.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Reis, M.S. Souza and M.C.C. Araújo, Analysis of the airflow in the TA-2 subsonic wind tunnel. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1044 (2018):1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology 2008 Evaluation of Measurement Data—Supplement 1 to the ‘Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement’—Propagation of Distributions using a Monte Carlo Method. www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html.
  14. [14]
    P.M. Harris and M.G. Cox, On a Monte Carlo method for measurement uncertainty evaluation and its implementation. Metrologia 51(4) (2014) S176.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    P.M. Harris et al., Summarizing the output of a Monte Carlo method for uncertainty evaluation. Metrologia 51(3) (2014) 243.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    M.G. Cox and R.L.B. Siebert, The use of a Monte Carlo method for evaluating uncertainty and expanded uncertainty. Metrologia 43(4) (2006) S178.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    A.L. Buck, New equations for computing vapor pressure and enhancement factor. J. Appl. Meterol. 20 (1981) 1527–1532.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    ISO 10012:2003 2003 Measurement Management Systems—Requirements for Measurement Processes and Measuring Equipment (Geneva: ISO).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    China Meterological Administration. JJG (Meteorological) 004-2011 Verification Regulation of Wind Direction and Wind Speed Sensor of Automatic Meteorological Station.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    W. Bich, Revision of the ‘guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. Why and how. Metrologia 51(4) (2014) S155.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    C. Elster and A. Link, Uncertainty evaluation for dynamic measurements modelled by a linear time-invariant system. Metrologia 45(4) (2008) 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    R. Kessel, R. Kacker and M. Berglund, Coefficient of contribution to the combined standard uncertainty. Metrologia 43(4) (2006) S189.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    G. Ebrard, A. Allard and N. Fischer, A user-friendly software for a simple and validated implementation of GUM Supplement 1. 17th International Congress of Metrology. EDP Sciences (2015).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Metrology Society of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mingming Wei
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yang Zeng
    • 1
  • Li Zou
    • 2
  • Chunhua Wen
    • 1
  • Xiaogang Liu
    • 1
  • Changchun Li
    • 1
  • Shan Xu
    • 3
  1. 1.Atmospheric Observation Technology CenterJiangxi Meteorological BureauNanchangChina
  2. 2.Gansu Provincial Meteorological Information and Technic Support and Equipment CenterGansu Meteorological BureauLanzhouChina
  3. 3.Nanchang Meteorological BureauNanchangChina

Personalised recommendations